[Amerigomag]

Prop. 8 allowed downward reduction, if prices decline. I doubt the authors of Prop. 8 intended a permanent "windfall" benefit, when values TEMPORARILY declined.

I would argue that since Prop 13 allows property valuation to be increased, any gain from Prop 8, which Pool did not realize, is offset with time.

A property tax reduction under Prop 8 is offset by later increases under Prop 13.

The original intent of Prop. 13 was to make property taxes predictable, tied to purchase price.

This was clearly not the primary intention of Prop 13.

Prop 13 was designed to primarily accomplish two things.

1)Protect retired homeowners from confiscatory tax increases in their lifetime, allowing them to remain in their homes,
2)Protect agricultural property, adjacent to urban development, from tax increases that made agricultural pursuits fall victim to urban sprawl.

I am familiar with the motivation behind Prop 13 because I was privy to many of the early planning discussions that lead to its creation. Those discussions occured in my father's home.

[Carry_Okie]

I am familiar with the motivation behind Prop 13 because I was privy to many of the early planning discussions that lead to its creation. Those discussions occured in my father's home.

You had a most fortunate education.

[liberallarry]

A 2% average annual increase in propertry value cannot be considered confiscatory. The law was not designed to protect landowners from all risk or obligation. Absent any increase in taxes a landowner would still lose his land if business or other reverses rendered him unable to pay his taxes.

There's a balance to be struck between the needs of individuals and their obligations to society. Government costs money.

Keep in mind also the force driving these changes and stresses - population growth. People want to live somewhere. If land costs are too high housing construction dies, the economy dies, and people must live nowhere. They don't like that.

Our economy exists on growth. Without it we have chaos. There's a contradiction of course. Growth cannot continue exponentially and indefinitely in a world of finite resources. No one has a solution to that problem. Most people refuse to recognize its existance.